The Blog

2021-

2021-05-20 f
PROPAGANDA (Net Zero and Zero Covid won't withstand scrutiny.)

Beware the twin fanatics of Net Zero and Zero Covid

There are some striking and dangerous similarities between the movements to eradicate carbon and Covid

n the final days of her premiership, Theresa May did something outgoing leaders often attempt to do: desperately salvage some sort of legacy through a series of ambitious commitments. These culminated in a legally-binding environmental pledge – net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

One of the most expensive policies in British history attracted not a shred of scrutiny. Instead, in a now-familiar process, it was waved through Parliament via statutory instrument, with no meaningful impact assessments, save a few vague ministerial assurances. Since then, ministers and officials have worked to bury the true costs of the pledge – even after their own modelling suggested the final tally would exceed (already ruinous) official estimates by some margin.

There is nothing unconservative about environmentalism – quite the opposite. Done properly, it can unite different strands of Tory thought, and tackling climate change is far too important to be ceded to the Left. But Tory environmentalism ought to deal in reality – the tried over the untried, the actual over the possible. There is something not just irresponsible, but deeply unconservative, about making pie-in-the-sky commitments with no clue of how you’ll fulfil them.

We are gradually beginning to grasp the true cost – and practicality – of this feverish legacy-hunting. A new report from the International Energy Agency offers recommendations for meeting the target; outlawing new domestic gas boilers from 2025 and imposing a global ban on petrol cars by 2035. Net Zero advocates excel at pretending this vast transformation will involve little sacrifice, or be funded exclusively by the super-rich or amorphous baddies like the energy industry. In truth, modest households will inevitably shoulder much of the burden.

Now, however, the Net Zero fanatics have a twin. It was bad enough the first time around, but a similar kind of utopian posturing is visible in the ongoing calls to eliminate coronavirus from Britain and achieve Zero Covid.

There are startling similarities between these ideas – illogical, impractical projects whose costs will fall disproportionately on the poorest, with a worrying lack of transparency about their true impact. Although the Government’s advisers have – hearteningly – spoken of “learning to live with the virus”, a sizable crop of scientists beg to differ.

“Zero Covid” does appear to be gaining ground. It’s present in the demands for open-ended border closures. You can see glimmers of it among the calls to delay or even reverse the end of lockdown. Ignoring the previous criteria (overwhelming the NHS, or surging deaths), we appear to have switched to shutting everything down because cases are rising in discrete areas. The ever-mobile goalposts have shifted so often that the football match is now being played with the neighbouring cricket club.

Both Net Zero and Zero Covid offer intellectual cover to those who love state control for its own sake. Many who long for the downfall of capitalism have passionately embraced the Net Zero arms race; some Zero-Coviders possess dubious motives for trying to make Britain just a little more like China, or at least of potentially ignoring the financial consequences of continued lockdown.

Both camps specialise in making the perfect the enemy of the good. Devout Net Zeroers often reject as insubstantial any solutions that might be compatible with the free market, such as taxing the externalities of emitting directly – just as they reject genuinely viable low-carbon alternatives like nuclear power.

Similarly, it often feels as if there is no level of infection low enough to satisfy the Zero Covider. On international travel, for instance, there is surely some balance to be struck between Fortress Britain and a free-for-all – merging sensible border controls and close monitoring of variants with a general assumption in favour of reopening. Yet given the occasional outbreaks even in Zero Covid utopias like Australia, the logic of their position demands indefinite border closures – and all the attendant misery that involves.

Finally, both movements impose elite aims universally. A rich country like ours cannot remain isolated forever – and just consider the calamitous economic impact on poorer countries. Already, tourist hotspots are clamouring to open their doors to foreign visitors, vaccinated or not, a measure of their plight. Likewise, the lifestyles of well-heeled Net Zero advocates insulate them from the inflated costs of rapid decarbonisation, but what about the struggling majority?

And just how much popular buy-in is there? The public may favour vague green aims and lockdown caution in opinion polls, but when presented with important caveats (and the likely cost of all of this) the depth of their support may prove shallow. We Brits aren’t as fond of taking to the streets as our French counterparts, yet the gilets jaunes movement should be a reminder that inflated living costs carry a political price-tag, too.

In Net Zero and Zero Covid we have twin utopias that specialise in kicking the can down the road and into some far-off future. In each case, we cannot ignore their true implications forever. (read more)

______________________

Permission is hereby granted to any and all to copy and paste any entry on this page and convey it electronically along with its URL,
______________________